For centuries, humans have been nailing horseshoes to horses' feet as the most popular solution to protecting their hooves. But horseshoes are a very poor solution. Not only can a horseshoe constrict the natural growth of the hoof, but it can also restrict the natural expansion and conformance capability of the hoof during movement. This can reduce the hoof's ability to absorb shock, which can lead to injury of the delicate soft tissues and joints of the hoof and lower leg. The constricting effect of a horseshoe can cause contraction of the heel, which can lead to heel pain, severe lameness, and even loss of use. Further adverse effects include a lack of frog pressure and support necessary for proper circulation of blood.
In recent years many horse owners are favoring the more natural approach of having their horses go barefoot. Unfortunately, this can be also damaging to the hooves. Wild horses are able to keep their feet in good condition by being on the move constantly, but domestic horses tend to require ancillary protection for their hooves. Among other things they are not able to toughen their hooves within the confines of domestication, and often encounter hazardous and unnatural footing conditions when being ridden.
One solution is to have the horse wear hoof boots. Two examples in the patent literature are discussed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,661,958 (to Glass) and U.S. Design No. D440,363 (to Ford). These patents, along with all other referenced extrinsic materials, are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety. Where a definition or use of a term in an incorporated reference is inconsistent or contrary to the definition of that term provided herein, the definition of that term provided herein applies and the definition of that term in the reference does not apply.
Unfortunately, the known hoof boots tend to have poor conformation to different hooves, and tend to fall off the hooves upon extreme movements. For example, in the '958 and '363 designs, the boots retain the heel in place by gripping the very lowest portion of the heels with a strap, and using gripper teeth to bite into the hoof wall. The gripping and the grabbing, especially by the gripper teeth, can cause significant hoof wall damage. Also, this retention method only works on horses that have shoes nailed in place, or for barefoot horses where the hooves are foamed or glued into place. There is yet another problem in that the rigidity of the boot and its closed design tends to trap debris between the boot and the hoof during use. Once dirt and mud get inside a hoof, they can cause painful bruises on the sole of the foot. Thus, boots according to the '958 or '363 patents must be properly fitted, and must be frequently checked for debris.
U.S. Application No. 2004/0168813 (to Ford), 2005/0150197 (to Ford) and 2005/0166556 (to Ford) depict improved hoof boots that wear like a sneaker. Unfortunately, such boots provide insufficient pastern clearance. An additional problem is that the lace tension mechanism puts pressure right on the coronary band (horn to soft tissue juncture) which can damage the newly grown fresh hoof horn or the delicate coronary band itself. Still further, the '197 and '556 designs have not solved the problem of trapping debris, which as mentioned above, can damage the hooves.
Ford attempted to solve the problem of trapping debris by using a “gaiter,” see publication 2005/0066632. But in actual usage such gaiters can actually collect debris and exacerbate the problem.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,744,422 (to Dallmer) provides a hoof boot with mountable belts. While the belts of this design are less rigid than an enclosed boot, they still do not provide adequate flexibility, and at the same time securely retain the hoof. In addition, the '422 design has insufficient clearance for the descending pastern bones, and is open on the bottom, thereby providing little protection to the sole of the horse's hoof.
Thus, there is a need for a hoof boot that provides better conformance, retention of the hoof, and reduces entrapment of debris.